martin wrote:

JohnWallace44 wrote:Which team was running out a midget brigade last season? The Lakers or the Magic?

Both: Derek Fisher and Jameer Nelson. Neither will make it back to Finals, right?

Also, you must really hate the Jennings pick for MIL, right?

Martin, I guess you have it out for me. I'm really not sure what the opposing strategy is. Actually... I guess the opposing strategy is what our team is right now.

Was my draft strategy "only draft a PG who's got a 7ft wingspan"? No. What I've been saying for years is that you should draft players that give you plus size relative to their position at any position. That's why I question the value of both Hill and Douglas and I'll continue to until they win us some games with any consistency.

What exactly is controversial about that? The fact that a banal statement like that blows up the discussion boards is ludicrous.

Especially as a fan, I don't have the ability to judge who the next Chris Paul or Isiah Thomas is going to be. What I can see is the freight train coming down the tracks. You start Douglas and you have the smallest PG in the Atlantic. You build your team with the idea that he's the solution and you've got half a dozen more guys coming into the league next year that are even bigger than the big PG's that are here already. Look ahead, don't give me Isiah Thomas from two decades ago when the rules were completely different.

I can't take credit for the genius [/sarcasm] idea that size wins championships unless Derozan and Holiday are successful. We'll see.

Yeah, I like Jennings as a pick, but its because Calhoun, an expert who knows pro talent and scouted him, said he was the best he'd seen in ten years. That's good enough for me sight unseen. He's 6'1, is a natural PG, and has superior athletic skills. That's what I said before the draft and that's what I say now.

Douglas is a combo guard. When is it OK to draft a combo guard in my book, or a combo forward? When you draft a tweener, you should draft him because he's not going to hurt you at SG in Douglas' case, but he's going to be a mismatch in your favor at PG if you can teach him those skills. Douglas just doesn't get there in my opinion. If Tyreke Evans can't hack it at PG for some reason, then he's not hurting you at SG. If Derozan can't play SG, then he's still good at SF.

The Lakers, Magic and the Celtics the year before were some of the longest teams I've seen. You want to tell me that's not true or skew the issue, then you're just wasting my time.

If you have a PG who can see over the defense, whip passes around people, shoot over people and shut people down on defense... not really sure what the downside is.

Any of these guys who are not in the Rondo/Rose mold have to be extraordinarily skilled in order to make up for it the lack of length. My point is, why do you want your guy trying to make up for anything? I'll take the team with the natural advantage any day of the week and twice on Saturday.

JohnWallace44 wrote:Was my draft strategy "only draft a PG who's got a 7ft wingspan"? No. What I've been saying for years is that you should draft players that give you plus size relative to their position at any position. That's why I question the value of both Hill and Douglas and I'll continue to until they win us some games with any consistency.

What exactly is controversial about that? The fact that a banal statement like that blows up the discussion boards is ludicrous.

Back up your assertion that teams should draft based on length with facts, like you said you would. Show us teams that have drafted bigger players and show us how that has worked out.

It's controversial cause it's ridiculous. If it's just a banal statement, why do you defend it so forcefully instead of saying that it perhaps could be one of many many elements a GM drafts on and it could also be one of many many elements that makes a player better in the NBA?

JohnWallace44 wrote:

fishmike wrote:JohnWallace.. do you play?

I play. I'm an ambiguous forward like Gallo and Chandler.

stiff legs and short arms?

JohnWallace44 wrote:

martin wrote:

JohnWallace44 wrote:

fishmike wrote:JohnWallace.. do you play?

I play. I'm an ambiguous forward like Gallo and Chandler.

stiff legs and short arms?

WTF does that mean? Pick a court in Manhattan Martin

feeling insecure?

martin wrote:

JohnWallace44 wrote:

martin wrote:

JohnWallace44 wrote:

fishmike wrote:JohnWallace.. do you play?

I play. I'm an ambiguous forward like Gallo and Chandler.

stiff legs and short arms?

WTF does that mean? Pick a court in Manhattan Martin

feeling insecure?

I dunno Martin, you're the one who wants to insist that size doesn't matter.

Wasting my time with this Martin. You wanna mock me instead of making real arguments then you're only doing it to the detriment of your own board.

If you are undersized at every position like the Knicks are, well, you're going to end up being about as good as they are. They are destined for failure. You can be as talented and skilled as Lee and Nate are, but at the end of the day its too much to overcome.

Its a question of, do you want to build a championship team in the mold of previous/current ones, or do you want a couple of underdog players that are fun to root for? Because that's what we've got right now.

If you want to count Courtney Lee instead of the lineup that put teams away using Turkoglu at lead guard then you can try and tell me that the Magic were small last year even though the commentators couldn't get enough of talking about how long both teams were. Ignore Gortat, Pietrus... come on.

The Pistons are 20 years ago. Is that your argument?

WE ARE PHYSICALLY OVERMATCHED AT EVERY POSITION. Go back and look at the Hawks game. It looks like the UNC taking on Fordham because of the mismatches all over the floor.

Can I put it any simpler for you? Whatever metric you want to go by, be it vertical, height, reach, wingspan, the Knicks are not matching up with anyone on paper, and it bears out in the results.

By your take we should be surprised. Looking at that weakness at every metric at every position, I'd try to draft to make up for that. Going with average attributes at the positions we took Hill and Douglas, that's where you and I disagree.

You think by citing Isiah Thomas that I'm simply off my rocker?

Who are the top rated PG's coming in next year Martin? They are Wall and Warren. I don't believe you'll be able to compete with a shrimp team going forward. There is a new order coming in the NBA. We can either get players who can compete on their level or get used to being run over every night.

Even Nellie's "small ball" teams had players that were 6'8 across the board. At least you have bigger than average players at a couple of spots.

Don't try to make this like we're going to gain something by being small everywhere on the court.

You could try for another 20 years to try to recreate the Bad Boy Pistons and it may be impossible due to the changed NBA rules. You can GM that way. If I'm in the big seat, I'll take the easier route. That's just me. Again, its my opinion.

You want to make it personal Martin, then hey I'm no great ball player, but on the court seems like a better place to settle it than to have you throw insults at me on your board.

Address Houston winning what? Hakeem the Dream? Did Horry cause us any problems that year? Does Rondo have a crazy wingspan to go along with whole list of crazy measurables? Where are you coming from?

You're right Martin. I don't know jack. The TV analysts who do this for a living don't know jack. You've got it all figured out boss. Draft small players all day long and see where that gets you.

What in gods green earth is so crazy to you about saying that Rondo and Rose are the prototypical point guards in my eyes? You're making an argument out of it just for kicks. For every Isiah Thomas there's twenty years of Magic, Kenny Smith, Gary Payton, now Rondo and Rose, and in the future Wall and Warren.

Aren't you supposed to be a moderator? Trying to get a rise out of people is an interesting take on that position. I post more stats and figures than anyone. If you want to make it like its a completely baseless theory of mine is just strange.

Tell me you don't agree, you'd rather re-build the Bad-Boys, fine.

Christ, our team is the best example of proof you need. We're playing undersized all over and have one win to show for it.

You want me to put out a research paper on every thread and you just bring "Hey remember Isiah Thomas?"

On my team, I'm looking for a PG to lead them that fits a Rondo/Rose profile. I'd rather draft Marty Collins or Holiday and fail if I'm a GM.

Houston is winning this year... so you want a prize that they have won a few games with a small lineup? They have a great GM. He thinks outside the box. Our GM does not. I'd rather he didn't try to make those calls.

Boston is not an undersized team. Again, Rondo is a freak player who fits my argument, not yours. His wingspan is almost 7'. Garnett, same deal. They had bigs coming out their ears on that team.

We are so far away from putting anything resembling that on the floor Martin. That is why a pick of Derozan or Holiday would have made sense to me. At least if you have one dude who's a mismatch you can post up a guard when things get off track offensively. Gary Payton used to do that all day long for Seattle.

Maybe when I have some free time, I'll go through Boston's minutes played per height/wingspan and see where that comes out versus their playoff opponents for their title run.

JohnWallace44 wrote:Yes I have Martin. I've gone over wingspan, max vert and height arguments endless times with stats in the past and in recent posts.

You want me to put out a research paper on every thread and you just bring "Hey remember Isiah Thomas?"

On my team, I'm looking for a PG to lead them that fits a Rondo/Rose profile. I'd rather draft Marty Collins or Holiday and fail if I'm a GM.

Houston is winning this year... so you want a prize that they have won a few games with a small lineup? They have a great GM. He thinks outside the box. Our GM does not. I'd rather he didn't try to make those calls.

Boston is not an undersized team. Again, Rondo is a freak player who fits my argument, not yours. His wingspan is almost 7'. Garnett, same deal. They had bigs coming out their ears on that team.

We are so far away from putting anything resembling that on the floor Martin. That is why a pick of Derozan or Holiday would have made sense to me. At least if you have one dude who's a mismatch you can post up a guard when things get off track offensively. Gary Payton used to do that all day long for Seattle.

Maybe when I have some free time, I'll go through Boston's minutes played per height/wingspan and see where that comes out versus their playoff opponents for their title run.

you had me at Hello Mardy Collins. Talents wins in the NBA. For the most part all the guys in the NBA are athletic freaks, that's why they play professional sports. It's the ones that work hard and put their talent to good use that make themselves into players that win, long arms or short arms or no. Stiff legs too.